Tagging and filtering as an alternative to content bans
It was one of those strange coincidences that makes one think that, if there were a god, he must have a strange sense of humour. Salman Rushdie, who was the target of a 1989 fatwa issued by Ayatollah Khomeini that called for his death due to his novel The Satanic Verses and who lost sight in one of his eyes after being stabbed on stage in the US last year, warned that never in his lifetime had freedom of expression been under such a threat in the West. Less than a week later, Fur Affinity announced a new rule banning adult artwork of characters with childlike proportions, later calling out specific pokémon and digimon. I have already written about the importance of free speech for the furry fandom, so here I would like to discuss how increasing authoritarianism is restricting free expression and a simple way to help safeguard it.
Restrictions on content have increased over time.
Unfortunately, Fur Affinity's current body-proportion ban is not an isolated incident and many furry sites have increasingly restricted what users may post. By searching through the site updates for SoFurry, Inkbunny and Fur Affinity, one can find plenty of major policy changes have happened in the past 10 years.
SoFurry's updates to restrict content includes:
- Banning of content containing certain hate group symbols in October 2016 (even in a historical context)
- No child characters in adult artwork in May 2018
- No child characters in adult stories in May 2021
- No AI-generated content in March 2023
The only change on Inkbunny was when it restricted AI-generated content in November 2022.
Fur Affinity's Upload Policy has changes far more often than the previous two sites but many of the changes are minor or also influenced by the code of conduct (e.g. Fur Affinity draws a distinction between fictional use of hate group symbols and the identification with hate groups but, depending on the artwork, the use of a symbol may imply identification). This makes it more difficult to isolate actual changes to the Upload Policy. Among the bigger items that have been prohibited from post are the following:
- Body fluids, injuries or death in photography as well as screenshots with no user-generated content in July 2014
- Minors in the presence of sexual activity or nudity in April 2019
- AI-generated content in September 2022
- Characters with specific body proportions in May 2023.
Aside from rule changes on the aforementioned sites, there have been other incidents which are worth keeping in mind. Upon its launch, FurryLife Online (which no longer appears to be online) implemented a ban on both cub and feral characters in adult artwork. This is not the only time that there has been animosity towards ferals in the furry fandom.
Sometimes the issues around free expression in the fandom go beyond adult content. Furry publishers are generally quite conservative and will often not publish views that depart from mainstream furry thought. They will even retroactively remove a story rather than defend its author's expression. This happened, for instance, when Dwale claimed Red Engines by Kschnee to be "Islamophobic propaganda." The publisher, FurPlanet Productions, subsequently removed the story from the anthology Dogs of War II: Aftermath while making a statement that they discussed the issue with Dwale. Strangely however, in their statement they do not mention discussing their actions with either the author of the story or the editor of the book. Despite Fred Patten, who edited the anthology, defending the story as being "anti-demonizing the enemy", it was removed anyway. (The story was later posted on DeviantArt allowing anyone to judge for themselves.)
Restrictions have long-lasting and wide-ranging effects
It's possible to dismiss many of these incidents as insignificant but, together, they speak to a growing intolerance, not merely within the furry fandom but within broader society as well. Regardless of what positions one agrees with, it's important to acknowledge that only by allowing others to speak, can we expect others to allow us to speak. There are two concepts which are important to bear in mind
- Mission creep - When the implemented rule or action extends beyond its original bounds. In our context, this refers to rules regulating art of a perceived extreme subject, then moving on to the next most extreme and gradually reducing what is acceptable to show over time.
- The ratchet effect - which refers to difficulty of rolling back changes implemented. As previously stated, there have been many updated rules on furry sites to restrict what art could be shared but few to no changes which allowed content which was previously forbidden.
About the only change I could see which allowed previously forbidden content was an August 2015 update on Fur Affinity which removed the restriction against "photography of random body parts that does not specifically showcase tattoos, custom jewellery, or body art." However, that was banned again in March 2022 as "content lacking artistic merit."
For one who is in the mainstream of what is considered acceptable, this may not bother them at first. Indeed, they may even approve of some content bans. There are furry artists on Fur Affinity who approved of the cub bans but who now find themselves in the crosshair of the ban on characters with "childlike" proportions. We must not only think of how a situation suits us in its current form but what would happen if we were to become its target. In other words, we need to imagine the world from behind the veil of ignorance. What would we want to happen if the next subject that was banned was our own interest? What if our interests change over time? Would we find that we have closed off paths that we would like to travel?
You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.
—Thomas Paine
There is a better solution than banning certain artistic subjects! There is a solution which hides whatever content one does not wish to see but which allows one to change one's mind. A solution which gives each person the ability to make their own decisions about what they wish to expose themselves to. That solution is tagging and filtering.
Tagging and filtering benefits everyone
Tagging content refers to adding descriptive keywords which identify the content in the artwork. Keywords benefit viewers because it allows them to find the content that matches their interests and tags benefit artists because it increases the pool of people that will see their work.
Filtering allows people to set up a blacklist of keywords which they do not want to see, e.g. cub art. Any submission which contains those keywords will be automatically hidden from view as though it never existed. This allows people to avoid the content they dislike and enjoy the content they like without affecting other people's experiences. Artists benefit because they can maintain a wider audience while keeping their full portfolio on every site and viewers benefit because they can control exactly what they wish to see.
Ideally, filtering should remove the friction from certain content because users can block what they do not want to see without interfering with the free expression of other users. This has long been recognised. To quote Fur Affinity site owner Dragoneer:
In the near future we will implement a series of filters to allow people to block and exclude art of all content types, giving them better control of how they use the Fur Affinity service. A great many people voiced that they felt for and against the art, but would be able to cope with given a proper filtration system was implemented on the site. We feel that this is the best method possible. Put the control and power in the hands of users for them to choose their own path.
We understand that many of you may not agree with this decision, but we felt that it was in the best interest of the site not to act as moral judges, not to choose for users what is ethically right or wrong. Why should cub art be the ultimate evil, when artistic depictions of rape, murder and drug use, all of which are quite illegal in the real world, are posted with no complaint? When do morals begin and end? Why does one moral high road state that cub art is the end all, be all of evil yet art depicting rape does not get the same brunt of the hate?
I think that was well said. I'm sure we all look forward to that being implemented in "the near future." Certainly, after 17 years, we won't have to wait much longer.
Filtering is dependent on good tagging, which is a weakness of Fur Affinity. The website has many untagged submissions which are like ghost submissions. Unless you are watching the artist or navigate to their page, there is no way for someone to ever find them again because they can not be identified using the search function. Even when keywords are implemented, they are sometimes treated as a joke. For example, it is not hard to find submissions with individual keywords that read, "I am just putting as many tags as possible how did you know" or "hahaha hey why are you reading this." This is keyword pollution.
Sites like Inkbunny and SoFurry generally have higher quality keywords for multiple reasons. First, both sites allow blacklisting keywords to avoid content that you dislike or find offensive. For Inkbunny, this feature was added in 2010, prior to its official launch, and, for SoFurry, this came in 2012 with the launch of SoFurry 2.0. Second, both sites require a minimum number of keywords for new submissions. For Inkbunny, these are covered in their Keyword Policy while SoFurry requires at least two keywords. Finally, both sites allow viewers to suggest keywords for existing submissions. This allows the community to fill in keywords which an artist may have forgotten or may not have realised existed.
When it comes to tagging, the current gold standard is e621. It has a far better, managed list of keywords and there is very active community involvement which results in comprehensive tagging that far surpasses any other site. Keywords on e621 go beyond just tagging what characters are present but also include mundane aspects of the picture as well as more meta keywords which could tell you the kind of perspective an image might have. To illustrate the sort of detail in tagging, this picture on Fur Affinity is completely untagged whereas the same picture on e621 has 33 keywords. Another picture on Fur Affinity has seven keywords but the same picture on e621 has 67 keywords. This level of detail allows one to really narrow down the sort of picture that you are searching for, even if you only have a vague idea of what was in it. The site also blocks some of the more controversial tags for non-users by default, and requires you to make an account and activate those tags to see them.
Summary
While freedom of expression is being curtailed in society in general and the furry fandom in particular, there are better ways to manage conflicts due to objectionable content than banning it. By correctly tagging content and implementing blacklists to filter that content, it is possible for each individual to curate the content which they see and avoid material which upsets or offends them. This is a compromise which benefits everyone and fits the values of a diverse and tolerant society.
That does not mean that tagging and filtering is a panacea. Despite having advanced blacklisting capabilities and stressing to users to block content they find objectionable, you will not have to search for long on e621 to find users going to content that they dislike just to complain about it. Additionally, in cases where content is banned due to legal reasons, filtering is not going to be a viable solution.
However, tagging and filtering presents the best opportunity to allow people to shield themselves from content they dislike while allowing others their free expression. This is what means to act as mature individuals in a community where other people posses different values and interests. In the case of fictional content, such as furry art, no moral beings are harmed by its production or consumption. We do not have to like or agree with the art that other people post but we do have to recognise that they have an equal right to their own artistic expression as we do.
I want to thank 'Yote and an anonymous friend for providing feedback on this article. Whether I acted on that advice or not, I appreciate having received it.
About the author
Rakuen Growlithe — read stories — contact (login required)a scientist and Growlithe from South Africa, interested in science, writing, pokemon and gaming
I'm a South African fur, originally from Cape Town. I'm interested in science, writing, gaming, all sorts of furry stuff, Pokemon and some naughtier things too! I've dabbled in art before but prefer writing. You can find my fiction on SoFurry and non-fiction on Flayrah.
Comments
while I often complain about the editing (and there were some annoyances here too), overall Sonious did a great job in making this more readable and catching some accidental link errors. Thanks.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
In return, of all your articles on the "Freeze Peach" you've done so far, this is by far the least preachy. It's more focused on: "Here are different methods for dealing with content restriction that have been utilized, and this is the one I perfer.". Still some preachiness there, but you wouldn't be a Charles Hitchen's atheist if you weren't preachy.
Utilizing that as a point I think made it more in tune for helping the audience come up with their own decisions. Where if they do want the site being more hands on on blocking what is objectionable, then hey, they can go there.
The interesting side effect of this ratchet effect that I've seen in the internet is that when a place gets too restrictive then a new place is created that is less restrictive, and as place A becomes more restrictive, then that less restrictive place takes in more people over time.
I think it was best described by this comic come to think about it...
I assume you wrote Christopher Hitchen's name incorrectly. Or it's some reference to something I just don't get.
That might be an accurate description of things, although I think places change more just due to time and new formats popping up. It's messy though and not always good. I don't think we should bow to tradition but it can be good to have. Something special about going to a school or university that's been around for hundreds of years. Many websites are transient and often proud of the fact. Being new and cutting edge is seen as cool. Having existed before the latest fad makes something lame.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Charles Darwin + Christopher Hitchens
Do the DBZ Fusion Dance
NOW WE ARE CHARLES HITCHENS.
~hair turns gold and spikey~
~ground shakes and the rocks float~
Funny enough, that's actually probably what happened in my head, yeah.
I love that comic.
"You don't fit in here."
BUT WE WE HERE FIRST!
"Doesn't matter, this is OURS now!"
A very impressive article if you're completely disconnected from creating things, you like to nod along with bumper sticker cliches, and are easily impressed by midwit fumbling for profundity.
All over loophole-child-porn, the least defensible as art thing on the planet.
Of course the resident pedo defender will go DUH JUST DONT LOOK AT IT and then lard a jumble of vague, sweeping claims together into what looks like an answer to a problem.
What problem?
Nobody is actually prevented from creating shitty art by platform standards about shitty art.
"increasing authoritarianism" bahaha. Get off the cross, we need the wood.
The first paragraph is one of the most absurd fumbles at trying to sound smart I have ever witnessed. Maybe wait for people to colonize mars before trying a bigger leap from Salman Rushdie to pokemon cub porn. What furry artist got stabbed over a fatwah?
The vague boogeyman of AUTHORTARIAN CUB CENSORS completely misses context like SESTA/FOSTA law fundamentally changing the net. Also, the censorship Salman Rushdie addressed was right-wing library book bans. A South African midwit trying to cobble these into an article about censorship doesn't have a clue about what those two things represent.
It is right-wing Republican culture war. His imagined all-powerful SJW cabal who inspired this shitpile of an article have nothing to do with that.
The conception of "free expression" here is hilariously stunted and tortured to meaningless. Observe the hand-wringing about FurPlanet removing a bad story. WHY THE FUCK DOES SOMEONE'S HOBBY PUBLISHING HAVE TO CONSULT YOU ABOUT WHAT THEY WANT IN IT? Hint: choosing to trim out a bad story is free expression. And the article stupidly cancels its own complaint by noting the bad story just got posted on Deviantart. Free expression isn't only for when you want to whine about entitlement to use someone else's specific platform.
Gotta love how there's a whole section titled "Restrictions have long-lasting and wide-ranging effects" without offering a single example. Instead of showing anyone who cares, it resorts to hack quoting like "CENSORSHIP BAD - ALBERT EINSTEIN"
The rest of it is the author's only real point: I REALLY WANNA WHACK OFF WITHOUT GUILT
God, how embarrassing for this site.
I'm not agreeing with the anon, but I think they illustrate one problem I've noticed on e621; some people just want to bitch about stuff they don't like (not that I'd know anything about that), and reminding them to "use the blocklist" just makes them stronger.
Also, wouldn't this be a coding nightmare to actually implement, if you're not already doing it?
You should have put "don't like" in scare quotes.
Sometimes its things they "wish they didn't like"*
* And therefore I will burn bridges by acting a fool in the community in hopes they hard lock me from the thing I wish I didn't like, and if I later get judged by a institution or person that has power over my life I can point out that I was an active advocate against it when I went to that place... but don't ask why I was in that place to begin with... (perhaps coming up with a term like CarpetWorming would be more efficient)
You should have put "don't like" in scare quotes.
Sometimes its things they "wish they didn't like"*
OH MY GOD, SONIOUS.
LOL LOL LOL.
YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD!!!!
A lot of these Anti-Cub Yiff freaks actually secretly LIKE the art, they're just scared their grouchy Twittw Buddies will find out and CANCEL them!!!!!
I don't think it would be a coding nightmare; it should be a pretty simple thing to implement. Also the fact that most sites other than FA have already implemented it years ago also suggests that the barrier is not all that high.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
You do coding? It's sort of like planting a tree. As it grows it gets harder to graft changes you wish to make, this is due to older systems that have been forgotten by time and how rooted they get. It's why when I put in 4-6 in excel it changes to 4/6/23... because that's how it always has been...
The earlier you plan the direction the easier something is to implement. I'm sure e621 was designed with the very idea of being a taggable database of loose photos, and not say, a social media hub. This gives focus to the art, in leu of the artist, which is why some artists who like having more control of their works don't tend to like it compared to a FurAffinity or a SoFurry.
It sounds like for Fur Affinity tagging was an afterthought to it being a place to find "people" rather than "art". I would argue it's not too good at either, but would it be difficult to add a better tagging system?
Requiring tags would be easy perhaps, but having a tagging system as robust as e621 on FA probably won't happen. But any improvement is better than none. And it may give the powers at be something to keep them busy so they're not going after other non-issue issues.
Not in the sense of designing programs, no. But do I know how to code, yes. I have to write all sorts of scripts for data analysis and I've fooled around with trying to make basic games on my own. I can use three different scripting languages, though the one I am most comfortable with is the least known outside of statistics.
In any case, I'm not claiming FA will be as good as e621. With the volume of submissions it probably can't be as good. But tags are already implemented, enforcing a minimum at upload is trivial. Allowing keyword suggestions is more effort but it shouldn't interfere with anything. A filter is also pretty simple, when submissions are displayed, they just get excluded (or covered up) when the tags match a the viewer's blacklist.
Of course it's possible the whole site is just patched together with no sense of order instead of being set up as discrete modules. That would make things more complicated.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
It hasn't changed much for, as you said in the article, 17 years.
I remember being hired to a NJ company in 2007 that was running off of RPG IV language...
I lasted 6 months before they tossed me, they taught me by having me listen to cassette tape tutorials.
It makes it hard to bring in new talent using outdated tech.
1) the term “indistinguishable” used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.
Note on US code Title 18, Chapter 2256
~~~~~
DRAGONEER actually quoted this????
BASED & FICTION-PILLED!
Too bad he isn't this LOGICAL & RATIONAL anymore.
Too bad he drank too much of the Tumblr / Twitter Kool-Aid.
Having experience with a codebase using filtering, the main issue is that it has to be done in several different places, sometimes in different ways.
Inkbunny has a centralised gallery view implementation, but even so there's all sorts of smaller things to consider, like the front page, the userpage and your new submission notifications (so when someone posts it has to check the filters of all their watchers to see who to notify, or send mail about - by comparison, friends-only works always create a notification, but it's hidden from view dynamically, as you may become friends later). And we had to make an exception for your favourites view because people complained that they couldn't see favourites that they'd blocked.
Of course there can be performance implications, too, and they're combined when you add in rating and per-submitter blocks as well. Careful indexing can help with this, but a filtered view will always be more expensive; and if the query planner makes a mistake, it can be a lot more.
The people who just wanna bitch and moan about art they don't like should stay back on Twitter, Tumblr, or Reddit.
E621 & Inkbunny should not become a battle ground for Morals In Fiction.
If you let the same Purity Wave wash into another website, you're just gunna get another FurAffinity situation again.
Why is violence more acceptable than love? You have an issue with cub art and yet it hurts no one, the creatures depicted don't exist any more than Aragorn or Smaug do. It's fine for them to kill and be killed...but it's not okay for fictional characters to love or be loved. It's fine for people to have graphic depictions of violence in movies and in books, even against minors and those are humans! But when it's as far removed as possible from actual people, love is still bad.
Also, your prose sucks worse than his and your insults hit like wet paper bags filled with yesterday's dog droppings; impotent and shitty.
There's a whole class of people employed to be ready for violence to defend every country.
Nobody employs anybody to fuck children except for the Catholic Church.
Jacking off the children isn't "love" whether fictional or not.
If you think getting hit with a bag of shit is no big deal, it must happen to you a lot and I see why.
Nice one. I never said anything about doing anything to people in real life. Fiction is fiction and reality is reality. If you cross them, bad things happen. The only time people get hurt is when someone can't see the difference or they don't care. Artwork doesn't enter into the equation. If we could filter out what we don't like when we're browsing around for fun it would be a good thing, no? Then you wouldn't have to see things you don't like. If only this site had a way to do that, maybe you wouldn't be here, commenting.
I mean, we don't have tag blocks, but ignoring Rakuen is almost as good. 😸
Holy crap, the Kitty Face Emoji looks JUST LIKE the little kitty character from that puzzle Arcade Game "Uo Poko" that I have for M.A.M.E.
THAT'S FRICKIN' ADORABLE!
But this is ~exactly~ what THEY (the Puritans) do! If you refuse to join them and you refuse to believe exactly as they do, they will excommunicate you from the Church! So it's either "hate the drawings" or they call you a Nonce 50 million times because they think that will win the debate (it doesn't, it's an Ad Hominem -- a lazy way out).
.............
"Censorship is a blunt instrument. It's not a scalpel -- it's a club."
"If you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost." ~~Neil Gaiman
Because they're into scat?
Hopefully only in a fictional sense, because that just seems unsanitary.
This is like if PETA did a total 360 reverse and decided that Vegan Meat is hurting the poor middle animals, despite it being MADE OF PLANTS......
M8. Homie. Chief.
REPEAT AFTER ME....
"IT'S A DRAWING."
Not some kind of evil Satanic Reality Warping Voo-Doo Magic!
When you draw a thing, or write fan-fic....
IT DOESN'T BECOME A REALITY.
Chill m8. Just chill.
No kids were harmed in the making of Sheath & Knife.
It's just cartoon wolves doing a Sweet Home Alabama.
WIDDLE, not Middle with an M.
A Dubya, Dammit!
Frickin' Auto Correct Strikes Again!!
So.....
Shaking The Shame Snake to Cartoon Dog Wieners is A-OK and totally not Diet Bestiality.
But if you draw a Short Pokemon, or Anime Girl that's equal to CSEM & human trafficking????
You're pretty funny, Anon.
I agree with you, other Anon!
Drawings Are Not People.
"the creatures depicted don't exist any more than Aragorn or Smaug do."
This is Brilliant!!!!
I would also add that Buster Bunny is neither a Real Person or an Actual Bunny.
But Twitter Dorks think that unless you draw him unnaturally tall and muscular -- he's a CHYYYYUUUULD.
Lol......
I think it's strange that you would equate 2-DIMENSIONAL ARTWORK to actual photographic imagery of a Real Human Person.
You must think that Tails, Klonoa, Buster Bunny & Kit Cloudkicker are all Real.
Lol.
This debate has been raging since the days of Fchan being the defacto Furry Site.
It was stupid then. And it is still stupid now.
It's a drawing.
Art is protected under the first amendment.
And it is ~Not~ "INDISTINGUISHABLE" from a Real Person.
Keep your Moral Rants to Twitter where they belong.
Do not bring this Purity Spiral / Outrage Addiction to the next website you decide to migrate to.
Or you'll just wind up turning it into another FurAffinity.
LULLLLLZZZZZ!!!!!
I repeat.
It's a drawing.
Drawing Something Doesn't Make It Happen.
Drawings Aren't People - So They Cannot Be Abused.
Nobody is going to hurt your precious little 2-Tailed Fox from a Video Game.
He Doesn't Exist - AND NON-EXISTENT THINGS CANNOT BE HURT.
Tails is not "a child" -- he is a FICTIONAL CREATION.....
You sound a thousand times more angry than I sound, lol.
I actually thought the Salman Rusdie reference was pretty cool.
But if it were me, I also would have brought up Frederic Wertham, the guy who railed against Comic Books as being a "bad influence on the youth" -- also Jack Thompson, the anti video games lawyer, and Tipper Gore and her crusade against "Rock & Rap Music with bad words in it" -- lol.
Also, you seem ~exactly~ like the type of Twitter Puritan who would set someone on fire simply for drawing / liking art you don't like, or for not having the "correct" opinions about it.
.
.
In the words of Bill Hicks: "Does my penis make me a bad boy, mommy?"
---------------------
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSEs7QJyCtY&ab_channel=BillHicks-Topic&t=1m34s
Please, give me the Satan-worshipping family down the block. The ones that have the good albums!
............................................
(((The stacking here seems really off, I'm used to Livejournal where new comments go under the person you are replying to)))
.............
"Censorship is a blunt instrument. It's not a scalpel -- it's a club."
"If you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost." ~~Neil Gaiman
https://www.flayrah.com/8931/tagging-and-filtering-alternative-content-bans#comm...
I am so sorry that people do not wish to participate in your Throw Rocks At The Witch festival.
I guess all the people who didn't throw a rock must also be a Witch themselves....
.............
"Censorship is a blunt instrument. It's not a scalpel -- it's a club."
"If you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost." ~~Neil Gaiman
Oh hey, speaking of Book Bans with unintended consequences!
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65794363
Whoops!!!!
HAHAHAHAHA...
Hmmm... that "Bible" book sure does have quite a lot of murder, rape, racism, etc. Huh? ^.^
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2023/03/book-ban-sponsor-very-sad-that-parent-is-usi...
This irony is simply delicious.
Don't complain when the censorship sword swings in the other direction.
https://youtu.be/XWhDlB4bc8k
.............
"Censorship is a blunt instrument. It's not a scalpel -- it's a club."
"If you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost." ~~Neil Gaiman
If by now, in case you're not aware, the author is into things that will put hair on your eyeballs.
And yes, he believes kiddie fiddling is OK, he's been in trouble for that belief before.
The author's defense is a whole spiel that people must decide for themselves what is acceptable or not. The problem of course is that the pedos deem porno of kids is just fine, and the author also seems to think it's OK. It is one thing to decide as an adult that you don't want to see something, but as a responsible adult you have a duty to report illegal things.
Increasing authoritarianism as you put it is a fact of life. George Orwell wrote the handbook, all the governments are working from it, some are using it in conjunction with their own book.
So, where'd you get IP blocked from this time?
You want, like, a coke or something while you're here this time? Just kidding. This is the Internet, I can't get you a coke.
Inkbunny relaxed content policies half a year after launch to allow certain human content, and photography - of real-life art like statuettes, fursuit features/parts, or use as a background.
While perhaps a good idea overall, both changes required increased moderation effort, which is one reason why things often get banned completely even if only parts of it are truly problematic - a twist on the curate's egg.
I must have missed that! Tricky trying to go back and quickly check through years of announcements for the relevant ones.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
I don't care about humans, GR.
I really don't.
IB is a Furry website
And you have every right to keep it that way.....
All i am saying is --- Fiction is FICTION.
A point you must also share......
Otherwise you wouldn't defiantly run a CUB SITE
When it seems the majority of the fandom hates it.
I do. But for the record, I don't see Inkbunny as a "cub site". That'd be, say, Cub Central. IB's a furry art community that allows cub and treats it like any other topic that a significant portion of furs don't care for - like scat, diapers or female characters.
And isn't that why Tagging & Blacklist exists????
Why can't the people who don't like those things just take 5 seconds to go add it to their list of blocked tags?
Then they won't have to see it.
I don't like a lot of things, but I'm not gunna stalk people's art just to complain about it.
That's pointless & dumb.
Nobody needs a lecture from some grouchy Fiction Cop.
My whole belief is that -- If you don't like a thing, don't go looking for that thing.
"a significant portion of furs don't care for- like scat, diapoers or female characters"
Yup, a tacit acknowledgement that women are not welcome in the furfag scene. An immediate thought would be that it's a gay thing but all my gay friends don't dislike females.
Thank you so much for saying what we suspected for years. Such hypocrisy, oh wait, there's never been a shortage of hypocrisy in this subculture.
You know nothing. And don't pretend you have "friends", cowardly basement dweller.
To clarify, there's a difference between "not welcome as people" and "characters you're not interested in art (or porn) of" (an attitude illustrated in the first frame of this explicit comic), which is what the keyword blocking system is for.
There are some people who can’t deal with the word no. I get the impression tagging is #seenoevil #hearnoevil #speaknoevil, people can filter it out and the rest can revel in debauchery on the site, and we can all come together and sing Kumbaya.
There is one little problem, tagging does not solve the issue with the issue a person, group or business doesn’t one certain media on their site. Sometimes the reason is purpose and style like wanting users to actual produce art or media than posting AI generated media as their own. Other cases is reputation , and legal issues and repercussions, that comes with allowing explicit media and child pornography on their site, or simply the media goes against the owners values or convictions.
In the U.S. legal system, 2D Drawings are not treated the same as Living Flesh N Blood HUMAN BEINGS..
Perhaps in Canada, or France -- they are treated as Legal Equals.
But here in America, that isn't the case.
The Protect Act of 2003 was RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
As it violates the First Amendment.
Art is protected Free Speech.
In order for an image to qualify as CSEM
It ~must~ be practically INDISTINGUISHABLE from a Real Person.
Anyone who thinks a cartoon and a human being look 100% alike --
NEEDS to either....
A: Get New Glasses. B: Get New Contact Lenses. Or C: Get Lasik!
OK boomer. Meanwhile IB is based in the UK and hosted in France, so the First Amendment doesn't apply. The relevant legislation includes the definitions:
Fortunately, animals are not yet considered to be people in law. But (6)(b) is deliberately intended to address nekomimi and the like, according to debate in the Commons.Anyway, Acton's point was about the owner's preferences. Indeed, sites are not required to host everything permitted by law, although some may be required to serve certain groups equally. FA's original position was determined by commercial pressures, but current staff certainly give the impression that they prefer not to host large swathes of work, even if it is unquestionably furry.
M8.....
It's ~still~ a Fictional Character.
And people will still accuse people whose only crime is moving a pencil across a piece of paper -- of cuddling actual kids. Because they think Fictional Things Are Real.
I literally said that I don't think FICTION is real.
I'm on ~your~ side.
Jeeeeeeeeezzzzzz.
Sooooo.....
An Artist From France Almost Got Arrested Over 2D Anthro Bunnies.
Are you gunna cave in and cater to France Laws and try to make IB be all squeaky clean -- or are you going to stick to your guns and your desire for Freedom of Fiction???
Personally, I would flip the finger at any country or legal system that tries6 to equate DRAWING A 2D CHARACTER with Abusing Children.
But i guess when you don't have legal coverage by a team of high paid lawyers, you don't get the option to do what I would wanna do.... (Which is to flip them off).
ALLLLLSOOOOO....
I am not saying "Open The Door To Posting Drawn Human Anime People"
Because obviously, IB is a predominantly FURRY website.
If people want Anime Humans,they can always go to Gelbooru.
Well, that was kind of the point of mentioning it. Many have asked in various ways why we can't be more lenient about what we permit with respect to humans - after all, they're allowed elsewhere. But the fudge factor of "appears to be under 18" - we're hardly experts on human anatomy, and not are those who'd be deciding - and other laws and customs relating to humans (e.g. so many underage game characters and Pokémon trainers) make it infeasible.
I personally do think that keeping InkBunny restricted to Furries - (of either the Anthro or Feral variety, as BOTH ARE FICTION, regardless of the opinions of those who would drive a wedge just for drama & tribalism's sake) - is a good policy.
Because like you said previously, most of these Anti-Fiction Laws primarily are centered on depictions of HUMANS (even though Anime People aren't really People).
The problem of course, is when you run into situations like France, who apparently have expanded their definitions to include Anthro Cartoon Bunnies. (I won't name drop the artist who went through this, but you and I both know who we're talking about, right?)
I think it's massively messed up that someone could potentially face Jail Time for drawing Anthro Animals.
But this is the world that the lovely Anti-Fiction Puritans of Twitter ~WANT~
What they do not realize is that the law won't give them any kind of special treatment. And they will have the pleasure of sleeping in the bed they made. Do not wish for things for others that you do not want for yourself! The sword that swings one way -- can always swing the other.....
.............
((EDITING NOTE, EXPLANATION -- there are people nowadays who will call the artists who draw Ferals "zoophiles" as some kind of deliberate "split" -- lol. To the people who do that, shut up m8. You aren't any better -- you STILL draw cartoon animals with animal penises. So I fail to see what difference drawing them with 2 legs or 4 legs makes... It's still just 2D ART, not ~real~ animals!)).
.............
"Censorship is a blunt instrument. It's not a scalpel -- it's a club."
"If you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost." ~~Neil Gaiman
Why do you type that way?
Type what way???
You mean loud and boisterous????
Because I spent too many decades listening to 2 The Ranting Gryphon.
His talking style infected my brain.
NEON-UH PINKU BEECHU SLAPPU!
PRISMACOLOR JUTSU!
Screw it, I'll bite.
You don't have to hard return after every sentence. Paragraphs are your friend. As it is, your comments and the way you type them stretch out the page and make it, if not harder, at least not anywhere near as fun to read as you seem to think they are. Also, multiple comments at once are hard to keep track of, especially when you just keep repeating the same thing. (I don't recall 2 being so repetitive, anyway.)
Also, the anon at the (current) bottom of the page is right; "drawings aren't real" is not a good argument (and that person knows how to use paragraphs; they are wise). Sure, the characters depicted aren't real. That's factually correct. But that fact works both ways; if the characters aren't real, sure, it's not a crime to depict them. But then, if they're not real, it's not a crime to censor, them, either.
When you say "drawings aren't real" or "they're just fictional", you're implying fictional/unreal things don't matter. Yes, that makes it silly to get mad they exist, but it also makes getting mad at people getting mad (and that anger causing you to spew badly formatted, oddly phrased comments all over a comment section over the course of several days) equally silly. Things that don't matter don't need defending, but they also don't need protecting.
Of course, I don't believe that fictional things don't matter, and I don't believe you do either (I think you care enough to, well, spew badly formatted etc., etc.). I do believe you are bad at this, however. To use one of your own examples, nobody is arguing that the fiction two-tailed fox Miles "Tails" is getting hurt by cub porn. That's silly, as you point out. But it's not the reason anyone has for censoring it. The harm people are worried about is not to the characters depicted, but to the viewer. To explain why fictional things cause real harm to the viewer would go into areas of philosophy and psychology and whatnot and so forth, and would be akin to explaining why comedies make us laugh, tragedies make us cry, and horror movies makes us scared. So, a lot of ground to cover.
But, I fear I have long since lost you (if I ever had you). The point is, the idea that "unreal" or "fictional" things can, and do, cause "real" effects is pretty well agreed upon. (This is also why I so strongly disagree with "speech should be free of consequences" line of thinking; it seems to me "having consequences" is rather the point of speech.) When those effects are harmful (as it has also been well established, if not quite as well, that "cub" and other such pornography is), the question of whether or not to censor becomes one of ethics. I am not arguing censorship is the moral, "right" choice, but rather, in cases where the possible immorality of allowing the harm caused by speech to exist outweighs the immorality of censorship itself, it may be the "ethical", or "lesser of two evils" choice. This is, at the end of the day, a judgement call, and different strokes for different folks (as it were), but the inability of the pro-"Free Speech", pro-"cub porn" to even grapple with this (fairly simple) line of thinking has actually probably enraged me way more than any actual piece of cub porn. I mean, how can you possibly fail to see the contradiction in the two most common arguments, "speech is so important, it must be protected above all other concerns" and "it's all fiction, which isn't real, so it doesn't matter"?
In conclusion, paragraphs. You should try them.
You want me to Make An Account?
You want me to hop on over to a computer and use PC FireFox and not my Phone?
Sure. Okay. I'll do that. I like typing with a physical keyboard more anyway....
But I'm still going to type the same exact way here as I do on Mobile, as at this point it is simply a force of habit. But just so you know, a paragraph HERE on PC is going to look a lot different from a paragraph on a Mobile Phone Screen.
................................
ANYWAY...
I still am against Censorship where it pertains to things such as 2D Art, Song Lyrics, Films, TV, Games ETC. And by Censorship, I don't mean Age-Locking certain stuff, like how the ESRB or the Movie Ratings System does (Rated G, Rated R, blah blah)... I mean like outright saying "This Should Not Exist."
When Tipper Gore and the Parents' Music Resource Center were going after Rock and Rap Music, they weren't even going for a Parental Advisory Sticker as the goal, they actually outright wanted the content TO NOT EXIST AT ALL. The warning sticker was just a compromise between them.
Tipper and the PMRC wanted all those nasty songs with the bad words to just NOT EXIST.
Cub Art Haters are not satisfied with things like putting the art behind a Login Wall, or having it put behind Tag Filters and a Blacklist System. They want the content to NOT EXIST.
To ~them~ the art is "immoral." To ~them~ liking the art means you want to IMITATE the art In Real Life. I happen to think that is a PREPOSTEROUS assumption. Just because you like something in 2D Art or some other form of media, should not mean "you actually want to, and WILL do it."
A person can watch a Horror Movie and ~not~ want to go kill people. A person can read a Cub Furry Comic and ~not~ want to go do what is portrayed within the pages of that comic.
And if someone DOES try to imitate the fiction in real life -- you don't go blaming the director of the SAW movies. And you don't go blaming the creators of the Sheath and Knife comic series.
YOU BLAME THE DUMB-DUMB WHO TRIED TO COPY IT IRL.
Unlike most of the User Base of Twitter --- I do not subscribe to the notion that enjoying a piece of fiction leads to COPYING that fiction in real life.
I do not think artists should be punished preemptively for what the viewers of their art and stories COULD do after consuming their creations. And I do not think people should be slapped with the label of "Chi-Mo" when they haven't even done the acts they are being ACCUSED of by the angry mob, and the only "crime" they committed was LOOKING AT OR MAKING DRAWINGS.
I outright REFUSE to participate in the Witch Hunt!!!!
I will not THROW A ROCK at the accused "witch" -- even if it leads to ME getting a hundred rocks to the face for not joining in.
There is a particular paragraph from Mark Twain's "The Mysterious Stranger" that I ABSOLUTELY LOVE that displays the full twisted nature of humanity -- when they are faced with the choice of torturing a target lest THEY become the target themselves.
........................
"Three saw that I threw no stone. Perhaps there are others; let them speak."
It struck a kind of panic into them, and, although no one answered him, many began to violently accuse one another, saying, "You said he didn't throw," and getting for reply, "It is a lie, and I will make you eat it!" And so in a moment they were in a raging and noisy turmoil, and beating and banging one another; and in the midst was the only indifferent one-- the dead lady hanging from her rope, her troubles forgotten, her spirit at peace.
So we walked away, and I was not at ease, but was saying to myself, "He told them he was laughing at them, but it was a lie--he was laughing at me."
That made him laugh again, and he said, "Yes, I was laughing at you, because, in fear of what others might report about you, you stoned the woman when your heart revolted at the act--but I was laughing at the others, too."
"Why?"
"Because their case was yours."
"How is that?"
"Well, there were sixty-eight people there, and sixty-two of them had no more desire to throw a stone than you had."
.............................
ANYWAY, screw the pointless, unnecessary WITCH HUNTS!
STOP THREATENING TO MURDER EACH OTHER OVER DRAWINGS, OR OPINIONS ~ABOUT~ DRAWINGS.
I HAVE SEEN PEOPLE "CANCEL" ARTISTS JUST FOR HAVING THE "WRONG" OPINIONS ABOUT THIS.
IT IS MINDLESS. IT IS STUPID. JUST STOP ALREADY. SHEESH.
.............................
.............
"Censorship is a blunt instrument. It's not a scalpel -- it's a club."
"If you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost." ~~Neil Gaiman
You want some more Mark Twain?
I sure do!
........................
"Oh, it's true. I know your race. It is made up of sheep. It is governed by minorities, seldom or never by majorities. It suppresses its feelings and its beliefs and follows the handful that makes the most noise. Sometimes the noisy handful is right, sometimes wrong; but no matter, the crowd follows it. The vast majority of the race, whether savage or civilized, are secretly kind-hearted and shrink from inflicting pain, but in the presence of the aggressive and pitiless minority they don't dare to assert themselves.
Think of it!
One kind-hearted creature spies upon another, and sees to it that he loyally helps in iniquities which revolt both of them. Speaking as an expert, I know that ninety-nine out of a hundred of your race were strongly against the killing of witches when that foolishness was first agitated by a handful of pious lunatics in the long ago. And I know that even to-day, after ages of transmitted prejudice and silly teaching, only one person in twenty puts any real heart into the harrying of a witch. And yet apparently everybody hates witches and wants them killed. Some day a handful will rise up on the other side and make the most noise -- perhaps even a single daring man with a big voice and a determined front will do it -- and in a week all the sheep will wheel and follow him, and witch-hunting will come to a sudden end.
"Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions are all based upon that large defect in your race -- the individual's distrust of his neighbor, and his desire, for safety's or comfort's sake, to stand well in his neighbor's eye. -- These institutions will always remain, and always flourish, and always oppress you, affront you, and degrade you, because you will always be and remain slaves of minorities. There was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions."
I did not like to hear our race called sheep, and said I did not think they were.
"Still, it is true, lamb," said Satan.
......................................
MARK TWAIN -- THE MYSTERIOUS STRANGER
......................................
.............
"Censorship is a blunt instrument. It's not a scalpel -- it's a club."
"If you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost." ~~Neil Gaiman
"You ask, What makes it worth defending? and the only answer I can give is this: Freedom to write, freedom to read, freedom to own material that you believe is worth defending means you're going to have to stand up for stuff you don't believe is worth defending, even stuff you find actively distasteful, because laws are big blunt instruments that do not differentiate between what you like and what you don't -- because prosecutors are humans and bear grudges and fight for re-election, because one person's obscenity is another person's art. Because if you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost." ~~Neil Gaiman
^^^^^
Dear F.A. Users....
Remember that one the next time you get your FA account banned for drawing a Short Pokemon.
And remember what you previously CHEERED for....
-----------------------------------------------
.............
"Censorship is a blunt instrument. It's not a scalpel -- it's a club."
"If you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost." ~~Neil Gaiman
-----------------------------------------------------
Yes.... I absolutely am!
So, here is a genuine question for you.
Let's say there is a person out there who gets his jollies being a "Plushophile" or an "Inflatophile" (or both????)
Chuckle if you wish -- at such a thought, but there's a point buried in here somewhere...
Also kindly spare me any jokes intended to imply that these are my personal fetishes.
Anyway....
--------------------
This hypothetical person likes Plushies and Overpriced Pool Toys that ~vaguely~ look like dogs or wolves or whatever. Now... SHOULD that person be treated as if he was screwing actual animals?
SHOULD that person be treated as if he was committing bestiality -- and SHOULD he be arrested?
If fictional things are 100% ~equal~ to the things they kinda-sorta resemble... Then shouldn't that person be arrested and slapped with a fine or be taken away to get some mental treatment???? (Mind you, he isn't doing this as a public display -- that would be Public Indecency, obviously).
.............
.............
Why does ONE fictional thing matter, and another one NOT matter? To get outraged by ~one~ thing but not another similar thing -- does not make logical sense to me. I personally do not really care what 2D art someone likes, or if they get their thrills by being intimate with a pool toy that vaguely looks like a dog or wolf... I personally couldn't give a damn if someone out there is banging his Balto plush. FURRY FANDOM IS WEIRD, AND IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN.... AND THAT'S OK!
It does not affect me personally -- and it is not affecting any REAL animals -- so why should I care? Why should I go out of my way to harass them over it????
IF / WHEN -- it crosses the line into that person doing stuff to ACTUAL animals, THAT'S when you put the cuffs on them and drag them off to jail. NOT BEFORE... Or perhaps you manage to snap some chat logs of that person expressing an interest in real animals.
A person engaging in such behavior with INANIMATE OBJECTS is not a 100% guarantee that they WILL cross over to doing that stuff with REAL animals......
We can say "that's weird and I don't like it" -- but legally, those objects are just objects -- Not Actual Living Breathing Creatures. And if banging pool toys keeps homie from humping ACTUAL doggos & wolfos... well, far be it for me (or is it "far be it from me?") to try to deny him of his outlet.
.............
"Censorship is a blunt instrument. It's not a scalpel -- it's a club."
"If you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost." ~~Neil Gaiman
....................
We Are Talking About 2D ART & FAN-FICS.
Not that goofball JohnnySomali (google it) going to Japan and harassing people on a train shouting nonsense about "Hiroshima & Nagasaki" or some equally stupid Real Life Troll (wannabe Tom Green) going to Germany and wearing a Swastika shirt while he shouts "The Holocaust Didn't Happen" -- or someone like Fred Phelps and his psychotic, brainwashed "Westboro Baptist Church" protesting outside of dead soldier's funerals with offensive signs....
OBVIOUSLY that kind of behavior is messed up.
BUT THOSE ARE NOT 2D DRAWINGS OR WRITTEN FANFICS....
Drawing Yiff Art of Buster Bunny from Tiny Toons is not even on the same level as "Yelling Fire In A Crowded Theater" or calling in a threat to your school so you can get the day off.
.............
"Censorship is a blunt instrument. It's not a scalpel -- it's a club."
"If you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost." ~~Neil Gaiman
I think the problem introduced by 'communication has real consequences' is that the communication we create is entirely a result of our effort. We ascribed the meaning to it, it's completely a creation of humanity. We did it, and we could, in theory, undo it.
It would appear to me that having the capacity to exchange information is itself consequential, and it's our inability to control the effects of the information on our mind once we've set it in stone that allows the information to have an effect on our mind that it does, a la "I can't unsee this".
We created a way to communicate. Communication has consequnces and can cause suffering. Whose burden is it? The transmitter, or the receiver? Our creation of language itself? And we're not all the same, either. The same message will cause completely different reactions. We might even mistake one message for another.
Unless someone comes up with a way to regulate the human mind so as to unify the consequnces of a given communication (which undoubtedly people would resist), destroy language and the school of communication, or somehow give people the unified means to control and be responsible for the consequences of their willing or unwilling participation in communication... well, it will continue to be a mess. People are too different from each other for any of these to work.
We consider it to be a virtue that we're allowed to be different people and that we aren't puppets. That virtue allows us to act and react too differently to have unified communication. This allows people to do bad things by another person's metric and allow people to have different metrics and means to communicate what good and bad is.
I don't see any creation of ours, any rule, any decision that will make this better or worse than it is at a fundamental level without destroying or restricting individuality as a human trait. This isn't just about one particular idea, this applies to any form of communication a person made, is making, or will make.
I don't think anyone even has a workable plan to destroy individuality or diversity as a human trait nor as a fact of life. I don't even know if people understand that creating a perfect system is what's necessary to do this, and that humanity is anything but a 'perfect system'. Because people are still all different right now, not everyone is going to agree, anyway.
None of this prevents setting a standard on a given website to do or not do a thing, but on a grand scale, in terms of destroying or preventing an idea... I don't know. As long as people think differently, and some of these people want to make websites, expect websites that have rules that mirror the people who make them. Some will have disagreeable content.
Is that really a surprise, and truthfully, what will regulations we impose ever do about it?
And yes, this goes for illegal content too. It'd be naive to not expect people to do things you tell them not to do, no matter what the rules are. I feel like what people are doing is supposed to matter in a discussion about what people should be expected to do. And people are doing everything, all at once. They really are. No one person has enough time to know how much everything everyone is doing but it's a lot.
And in that environment the idea of what the consequences are starts getting very, very lost.
I think it's pretty clear that the USA, while it does have its problems --- is still better at the whole "Fiction" thing than the other countries that straight up wanna throw you in jail / prison for DRAWINGS.
Lol.
Only certain elements consider too broad was ruled unconstitutional. The act is still in effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003
Interesting.
Now go read this one.
.....................
https://law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2256
..... Cornell Law, 18 U.S. Code 2256.
SPECIFICALLY....
"Section 9" & "Section 11."
And for the record ---
This is the EXACT SAME document which Dragoneer referenced in his "Statement About Cub Ary"
Before he guzzled the Twitter Kool-Aid.
**ART
This place sure could use an Edit Button......
It does if you actually sign up for an account, you know.
"It does if you actually sign up for an account, you know." -2cross
I did.... are you happy now?
^.^
.............
"Censorship is a blunt instrument. It's not a scalpel -- it's a club."
"If you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost." ~~Neil Gaiman
Well, no, but that's just me.
I'm going to keep to one comment, like my own advice. This is vaguely in reply to everything.
Okay, I know you don't like consequences of speech, and all, but a consequence of typing like this is that, well, your posts just look painful to read. Makes it harder to want to read. Makes it harder for you to get your point across, because it makes it easier for me to ignore it. However, you did say it does look better on mobile; I'll take your word for it. I have no idea, but if that's true, eh, that's a reason, at least.
I would like to clarify (which I don't feel like I should need to, but oh, well) that the possible "harm" caused by art/fiction/speech/whatever is not necessarily harm caused by imitation. I am not worried about violent movies creating violence, or cub porn creating pedophiles. The "harm" or "damage" I am talking about is harder to quantify. It's a moral damage.
Or, sense we're all quoting fiction, how about these lines from Scream:
What I'm saying is that art does have effects; it may not be the reason for behavior, but it does effect behavior. My point is that ignoring the consequences of speech is a moral failing; if you decide the moral failing of censoring is the bigger failing, well, that's fair, but I also think it's important that people do at least make a decision, rather than just shrug and say "it doesn't matter." (Also, there's a practical aspect; if throwing cub porn under the bus gets someone off my back about more general furry, well, I'll do it. You could argue this is it's own moral failure, however.)
Also, it's still annoying that the entire argument of the "free speech!" crowd is still a contradiction. You say art doesn't matter; if it really didn't matter, why are you defending it?
Also, point of order, but I believe the traditional method of executing witches is burning, not stoning. Stoning seemed to be more reserved for adultery, if I remember my Bible correctly, or blasphemy, if I remember my Monty Python, correctly. Unless that's a Mark Twain thing; can't say I remember that particular story of his. This has no bearing on anything, really, though, so feel free to ignore it.
No, I don't think the plushy/inflatophile should be arrested. But I also don't want to watch them do their thing. So I'd ask them to please refrain from doing it anywhere but privately. And I'm sure they'd feel that was a reasonable request.
Finally, I believe the point Rakuen is subtly agreeing with Sonious below about is that you're kind of annoying.
"They hanged the lady, and I threw a stone at her, although in my heart I was sorry for her; but all were throwing stones and each was watching his neighbor, and if I had not done as the others did it would have been noticed and spoken of. Satan burst out laughing."
...........
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3186/3186-h/3186-h.htm
^^^^^^^
I was referencing Mark Twain's story "The Mysterious Stranger" -- but "stoning witches" is also kind of a big part of The Bible.
"Leviticus 20:27 – A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them."
"Exodus 22:18 - Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (weird goofy Bible grammar, lol)...
Anyway, the entire point / message of me quoting the Mark Twain thing was in the story, the Angry Villagers get mad at anyone who refuses to throw a stone at the "Accused Witch."
When people are being accused of things they did not do -- and I won't throw a stone -- the angry mob turns their attention on ME, because I won't attack someone I do not know without VALID SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE that they actually did what they're being accused of...
"They draw art / write fiction I don't like" -- is not a valid excuse FOR ME to stone them to death. Prove to me that they actually did something beyond creating art / fiction, THEN maybe I might join the Rock Throwing Party...
I understand, 4channers & KiwiFarmers ~HATE~ Furries.
So if you gotta do some creative and clever Virtue Signaling to get them to leave you alone, I get it... Just don't stone anyone else in the process!!! Back in highschoool, the majority of my peers were extremely homophobic. I had to act a certain way [macho and stupid] to make sure ~I~ didn't end up a target.
What if they had convinced me to "Matthew Shepard" (unfairly murder) someone via intense Peer Pressure, like the boy in the Mark Twain story who didn't ~want~ to throw the rock at the accused witch????
I don't think I could have lived with myself if that actually happened... and I wouldn't want to be the reason someone else self-harms or is cyber stalked to death either!!!! (Especially if they're not even actually guilty of anything!!)
Like Mark Twain said, "the majority of the human race recoils from doing violence, but when surrounded by bullies, you act like a bully too, so you don't get bullied yourself."
Ahhh, yes. But I do not care if I am annoying, because I know that my points have ... a point.
The Furry Fandom these days is not the same as it was say, 20 or 30 years ago. The old-school Furry Fandom was super chill and people left each other alone. Nowadays, it's more like a fish tank full of Hungry Piranhas looking for any excuse to attack whatever swims by. The "Furry Puritans" will EAT each other, simply for "perceived" imperfections or impurities or differences of beliefs.... like beliefs about 2D Drawings. It's almost like "Burned Furs 2.0"
https://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Burned_Furs
Their whole shtick was "We have to purge the Fandom so the Normies will be nice to us."
The Furry Fandom is never going to reach 100% Vanilla / Mainstream Status. We are weird... we will ~always~ be weird. And no amount of "purging" is going to change that.
.
SURE! Keep out the Bad Apples, but try to make sure those apples are actually rotten BEFORE chucking them down the disposal...You MIGHT accidentally throw out a perfectly good apple by mistake.
.............
"Censorship is a blunt instrument. It's not a scalpel -- it's a club."
"If you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost." ~~Neil Gaiman
The more you write, the less is read. If you have a point, try not to lose it in quotes, simile, and repetition.
As for apples, it depends on whether one bad apple sours the crop. Some just like to be seen hunting them.
Okay, full credit part one; style does look better on my phone. Still not great. But not as shitty (maybe partial credit?).
Full credit part two, guy knows his witch stoning! Like, a lot! Seriously, kinda creepy!
But otherwise this is kind of same old, same old. You're even boring/annoying the free speech "absolutists"; like, I've been around Green Reaper long enough to know he's actually kinda peeved at you. This is him kinda being pissy, actually. Meanwhile, Rakuen is throwing subtle shade at you. You're not conveying the point well.
Anyway, I said my piece, I like e621 way too much to really object to the actual article, anyway, so, happy Pride Month!
.
.
I guess perhaps I should have taken the "subtle hint" from the previous article's comment section. I get a little ~too~ passionate, and I see that now. But still, am I any worse than the other Grumpy Anons who only came here to sling Ad-Homs and baseless accusations just for a cheap laugh?
GR and I may not be "friends" -- he may think I'm a total putz -- but I still hate to see the guy be called something he's not just because someone else thinks it's "funny" or for want of an Easy Scapegoat.
I also think it's unfair to say the same of IB itself when plenty of other furry image websites are just as "free and open" yet do not receive the same hate or labels...
-------
I also probably would've been better off had I just posted ~one~ concise, to the point comment and left it at that, rather than making 50 million across two separate articles and clogging up the comments section with my own "freeze peach" preachiness, which when done in excess -- can become more obnoxious and disruptive than the Anons who scream NONCE at anyone who disagrees with them. I can see that I went way, way, way overboard, and I apologize... So I'll just leave it at this, and be done with it:
"Escape the old boat and slowly poke holes in the new one" is simply not sustainable, because eventually you WILL run out of boats and you will be stuck swimming....
~hands out life jackets~
.............
"Censorship is a blunt instrument. It's not a scalpel -- it's a club."
"If you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost." ~~Neil Gaiman
I'm worried that the perception of what is or is not consequential beyond physical injury or the performance of a crime - in other words, the things that happen inside someone's head - is too murky and easy to assume to be useful in a debate. When people are different, expectations will clash. Actions will change. Results will vary, and then what?
What do we do then? How do we inform the next decision from that?
It's easy enough to do something someone tells you to do because it's what they want from you. But when you have to start making decisions based on what other people might or might not do because they perceive you... I just don't know if that's a road that actually ends.
Every step closer to 'your words have consequences' where those consequences are not rigid and clear, in my eyes, pulls me closer to 'silence is golden'. In those circumstances you have to live with any word you say leading to a crime in a manner that you cannot reasonably predict or control.
But it will be your fault, nonetheless, as you made the choice to speak. This assumes you know for certain that had you not spoken, a crime would not have occurred, but let's say for the sake of argument that that was true. What are your thoughts on that? What do you think are reasonable expectations of people when it comes to predicting others' behavior?
It has a preview button, too; you might try that. In general, I'd echo the fox - less haste, more involved comments with paragraphs. Otherwise your postings are likely to be rated poorly, which reduces their visibility (both directly and through a user average).
I'm not really concerned with "Being Popular" or "Loved By The [Current] Furry Fandom."
I'm just here to make fun of the people who think Drawings Are Real People....
Or the folks who wholeheartedly believe that what you like in Art is what you'd like to do In Real Life.
If someone can watch a SAW movie and not immediately want to go torture people in elaborate puzzle traps.
Then someone can read Sheath & Knife without immediately wanting to bang their little brother....
It's only the CRAZY people who lack the programming for SELF CONTROL.....
God I really despise the Auto Correct.
The way furaffinity handled the entire subject is wildly impractical and simply very, very dumb.
However, there remains the core principle that material meant to be viewed as child sexual exploitation for the gratification of viewers is what it is. "Drawings aren't real" is in fact a weak argument. A dirty secret of "drawings" is that awful real materials are frequently referenced in the creation of visual media. The existence of visual material in any format promotes and broadens the market for visual material. That directly increases demand that can only be satiated by the exploitation of actual minors.
Furries, by the nature of their subculture and the psychology it nurtures, live with powerful filters between themselves and physical reality. This in and of itself is not necessarily bad. It does, however, require a particular kind of vigilance. Simply put, furries are primed to excuse practically anything by telling themselves it is disconnected from reality.
What furries have abstracted away as "cub" is in reality something pretty fucking awful that a lot of people have lost all capacity for seeing clearly and in its true context.
"What furries have abstracted away as "cub" is in reality something pretty fucking awful."
Do you also / WILL you also --- devote this same level of energy to stopping Violence in Video Games, references to The Devil in Rock & Metal Music, and references to Drugs & Gang Violence in Rap Music?
Come on, Jack Thompson / Tipper Gore ---
I'd like to see just how dedicated you are to this "Purity In All Fiction & Entertainment" crusade
"We feel that this is the best method possible. Put the control and power in the hands of users for them to choose their own path. We understand that many of you may not agree with this decision, but we felt that it was in the best interest of the site not to act as moral judges, not to choose for users what is ethically right or wrong. Why should cub art be the ultimate evil, when artistic depictions of rape, murder and drug use, all of which are quite illegal in the real world, are posted with no complaint? When do morals begin and end? Why does one moral high road state that cub art is the end all, be all of evil yet art depicting rape does not get the same brunt of the hate?"
^^^^^^^^^^^
READ the words of your own GLORIOUS LEADER, king-god Dragoneer.
(Before he drank that delicious Twitter Kool-Aid).
I can't believe that Dragoneer was once so "enlightened" and Pro-Fiction.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150821170440/https://forums.FurAffinity.net/thread...
Lol.
Twitter Peer Pressure Sucks.
Wait, what's the year on this lovely little piece of Archived History????
2006!
Yeah.
That makes sense.
Because that would have been the same time period as when Dragoneer had art of his Preyfar Cub Fursona in the old SoftPaw Magazine......
So what sparked the change? I mean besides the Angry Twitter Mob with flaming torches & pitchforks.....
The furry artists I know tend to just reference other furry art for that - which is perhaps why anatomy is so dubious at times. The best example of this being possible is Stable Diffusion, which presumably does not have CSEM or photographic porn in general in its training database. Of course, it helps that furry artists are not drawing humans so you can fudge it a bit.
I remember someone got called out for using a swimsuit model picture at one point. Animal genital references have been used too, because some artists (or commissioners) are quite specific about accuracy.
The part that pisses me off --> is people calling a drawing (a 2D image of a fictional entity that does not exist) "Ch*ld P*rn" -- It isn't a person, so it's ~not~ CP. Jesus... how hard is that to understand?
And the other part that pisses me off --> is that UNLESS YOU HOLD THE SAME OPINIONS / PARROT THE SAME OPINIONS of the Angry Pitchfork Mob, you will end up on the end of their pitch forks just as quickly and easily as the person they were attacking ~before~ you came along to try to break it up.
GreenReaper.... there are people out there that quite literally want your head on a stick -- because you won't bow down and cater to their "morals." Because YOU won't cave in and let THEM personally dictate what art & stories get to be on YOUR website....
And any Artist or Art Fan out there who ~dares~ to speak up and say "There is no data to support your dubious claims" or "I don't want to make a judgement about this right now when I'm still on the fence" will immediately receive death threats, direct accusations of being a "Nonce" and also being told "You Defend Ch*ld P*rn."
No, you ridiculous knee-jerk reacting, pearl clutching Fiction Cops! We are not.
We are defending THE RIGHT TO DRAW & WRITE. Rights which YOU, the Angry Twitter Mob -- would like to take away. As France has... as Canada has... and I think also Australia? (I'd have to Google it -- Yup, they did).
DRAWN ART & WRITTEN FICTION -- is not even in the same GALAXY as Ch*ld P*rn. It's LAUGHABLY IGNORANT to even make such a comparison (and you haven't, GR! But THEY do!)... To me, it's like Ingrid Newkirk of PETA comparing Chicken Farming to the Holocaust.
https://www.peta.org/blog/peta-germanys-holocaust-display-banned/
How the HELL can you (PETA) compare HUMAN LIVES to chickens?
But at least in PETA's case, the chickens actually do EXIST IN REAL LIFE. Cartoon Characters DO NOT..... A chicken or a cow is actually REAL. A two-tailed fox from a video game? NOT REAL..... a cat-bunny thing with WINGS for ears, that inflates his enemies with a magical Wind Ring and sings songs in a made-up cutesy language? NOT REAL... a blue cartoon bunny rabbit from an animated show from the 1990s? NOT REAL. Two crime solving chipmunks who fly around in a Milk Jug tied to a Balloon? NOT REAL.
The cartoon bear who flies through the skies on a big piece of metal and hangs out with Air Pirates?
NOT REAL, IMAGINARY, PRETEND, FAKE.
To even compare someone's DRAWINGS & FICTION of Furry Characters to A REAL PERSON's pain and suffering... IS IGNORANT AND DISGUSTING... just like PETA is ignorant and disgusting.
..................................
.............
"Censorship is a blunt instrument. It's not a scalpel -- it's a club."
"If you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost." ~~Neil Gaiman
I ain't reading all that. I'm happy for u tho. Or sorry that happened
Mate... You literally came to a big long ass article fulla paragraphs and sheeeit.
Just admit you didn't read any books when you wuz in school....
"...Something about 2D Cub Art being evil or whatever..."
..................................
I'm sure real life actual CSA / CSEM victims just absolutely love it when the Twitter Puritans compare their horrific experiences to a 2D Drawing of a Fictional Character.
Kinda makes me think of ~another~ weird comparison....
https://www.peta.org/blog/peta-germanys-holocaust-display-banned/
https://jweekly.com/2005/05/20/this-time-peta-s-guilty-of-missing-the-point/
Chickens On Farms & Holocaust Victims Are Totally The Same, Right?????
.............
"Censorship is a blunt instrument. It's not a scalpel -- it's a club."
"If you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost." ~~Neil Gaiman
A note regarding tagging of furry art: furrynetwork.com, SoFurry, and Weasyl all give users the ability to add tags to other people's uploads:
* FurryNetwork has "Community Tags"/"Suggest"
* SoFurry has "Unofficial Tags"
* Weasyl has "Modify" link in Tags section
side-notes:
FA search seems pretty good, but seems to have some blind spots.
Weasyl's search seems entirely based on searching only tags.
Inkbunny's take on suggestions took about two years to fully develop, trying to balance between "we want users to be able to fix something that's missing" vs. protection against imposition of unwanted keywords by regular users or trolls. You can ban particular users from suggesting or block certain keywords, and those that are suggested are displayed as such, like SoFurry - while acting normally for search and blocking - until accepted by the submitter.
I'm not quite sure why Weasyl only does tag search, as titles and descriptions can be rich sources of data, and at least the former are not very expensive to put in a full-text index.
I wonder what made Dragoneer / Preyfar The Hyena Cub -- (who had art of his Cub-sona in SoftPaw Magazine) -- go from "Why is Cub the only evil in the Art World When There's Far Worse Things Out There?" to "HOLY HECK, MATE!!! YOU DREW A SHORT POKEMON? WHAT ARE YOU, A BLUDDY FRICKIN' NONCE?"
...............................
https://web.archive.org/web/20150821170440/https://forums.FurAffinity.net/thread...
-------------------------------
FA Policy Notice - "Cub" Art
-------------------------------
1) the term “INDISTINGUISHABLE” used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an ACTUAL minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition DOES NOT APPLY to depictions that are Drawings, Cartoons, Sculptures, or Paintings depicting minors or adults.
~~Note on US code Title 18, Chapter 2256~~
-------------------------------------
→→ https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2256 ←←
-------------------------------------
There are many kinds of activities which are illegal: rape, drug use, incest, bestiality, driving a car too fast, smoking a cigarette in a pub, etc. The list could go on and on. In some countries, homosexuality, democracy, freedom of speech and free-thinking are outlawed, held hostage under tight regimes, the penalties of which are anything but gentle. Some people have spent their entire lives in jail for exercising their independence.
Fur Affinity allows users to post art based on all of the above interests with no repercussions.
According to law based in the United States, furry art does not fall under the restrictions imposed towards pedophilia --- it is NOT the same thing. No actual child is hurt by the depiction in the art.
Furries do not exist in real life, and as such are nothing more than imaginative xenomorphic entities.
Given that, we feel that it is in our best interest as a website NOT to censor cub-related art.
If, however, we feel that the any art uploaded to Fur Affinity is based off of a real child, or meant to represent a real child -- we will take action against that user and report them to the proper authorities and pull their artwork. The administration behind Fur Affinity does not, and will not, ever support pedophilia. We will, however, choose and defend people's rights to freedom of expression and choice.
The original Terms of Service, which has been undergoing re-write, did prohibit posting of such artwork. The rules have been under review for some time now and have been discussed as we move to revise our documentation. The rules have changed over time, and the TOS has not been updated to reflect these changes. We expect to have an updated TOS within the next two weeks to reflect changes made in time.
In the near future we will implement a series of filters to allow people to block and exclude art of all content types, giving them better control of how they use the Fur Affinity service.
A great many people voiced that they felt for and against the art, but would be able to cope with given a proper filtration system was implemented on the site. We feel that this is the best method possible. Put the control and power in the hands of users for them to choose their own path.
We understand that many of you may not agree with this decision, but we felt that it was in the best interest of the site NOT to act as moral judges, not to choose for users what is ethically right or wrong.
Why should cub art be the ultimate evil -- when artistic depictions of rape, murder and drug use, all of which are quite illegal in the real world, are posted with no complaint?
When do morals begin and end? Why does one moral high road state that cub art is the end all, be all of evil -- yet art depicting rape does not get the same brunt of the hate?
There are many things that we, as individuals, object to and find find repulsive, but as people, as individuals, we have both the power and ultimate responsibility to make our own decisions. The right belongs to the people to exercise their power of choice. They can choose not to look at a submission, pass it by, +fav or even opt out of using the entire website.
We understand this is not the popular decision with users, but we choose to represent the ideals of freedom of speech and the right for individuals to make their own decisions as to what they view.
--------------------------------
Fur Affinity
Where Freedom of Expression Reigns
-----------------
HAHAHA.... Oh wow.
That "Freedom of Expression" sure didn't last long, did it....
.......................
.............
"Censorship is a blunt instrument. It's not a scalpel -- it's a club."
"If you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost." ~~Neil Gaiman
Just wanna say -- the formatting of this [website & comments] looks much better on Desktop PC than on a stupid Smart Phone.
Like, I can actually tell where one paragraph starts and the next one begins.
Everything isn't all bunched up together, or maybe it's just Mobile Firefox that does that.....
.............
"Censorship is a blunt instrument. It's not a scalpel -- it's a club."
"If you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost." ~~Neil Gaiman
Firefox Mobile is famously not great, in comparison with its desktop edition; I suggest Chrome Mobile or a similar browser for phones and similar devices.
The irony that for once I thought Rakuen made a good point with the whole "let's tag content instead of curate it" article, only for one particular manic commenter to come around and prove why sometimes curation and limitations on posting is the better action.
Sorry Rakuen.
Maniac? Nah...
The maniacs in my book are the Angry Villagers who wish to stone accused "witches" over 2D art.
>that's< a Maniac....
♪♪ maniac on the flooooorrr. And she's dancin' like she's never danced beee-forrrre. ♪♪
(there's not much humor around here, is there?)
ALLLLSOOOO... I wasn't talking about the article, I ~liked~ the article!!!
I was referring to the general function / look of the website on a Desktop PC vs Smart Phone.
Ya know, actual PC Monitor vs tiny little handheld Phone Screen. And nice clickety-clackity keyboard that actually lets me type with accuracy instead of needing cruddy Word Prediction that somehow always manages to replace the F-word with "Duck" -- lol....
........................
I am curious --- will you ~also~ call me a Nonce because I don't think people should be arrested for what 2D Art they draw or consume??? That kind of thing always seems to be par for the course on Twitter. But I think you are above that.
You don't seem like the Outrage Chaser / Witch Hunter / Accusation Slinger type.
........................
"...to come around and prove why sometimes curation and limitations on posting is the better action."
Hey, it worked for e621! They're very, very persnickety about comments / forum posts these days.
.............
"Censorship is a blunt instrument. It's not a scalpel -- it's a club."
"If you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost." ~~Neil Gaiman
I kinda get you here.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
You kinda get me???? Or are you talking to Sonious?
Comment structure / stacking on this site isn't exactly consistent, so I have no idea...
You Kinda Get Me... About which part? LOL.
The authoritarian censorship part? The part about how -- if the same attitude infects another Furry Site, it'll just turn into FA 2.0 and it'll just be another gradually sinking ship -- until it's at the bottom of the ocean?
Or Dragoneer's (Preyfar's) total blatant hypocrisy and desire to brush his history with SoftPaw Magazine under the rug?
(1) https://www.imgup.cam/ib/xR2gvrbGVC.jpg
(2) https://www.imgup.cam/ib/EAy4IBwGjC.png
I just found these on FurryBooru. ^.^
(now watch them all mysteriously vanish)
There's maybe like --- 9 unique pieces of Cub Art of Preyfar on there.
I mean, I couldn't care less what he likes that is Purely Fictional and doesn't affect reality --- but my whole thing is "Don't Be A Hypocrite" and Dragoneer / Preyfar is a colossal hypocrite.
I don't know what instigated such a drastic change in his thinking -- to make him go from "Freedom In Fiction Is A Good Thing" to "Short Pokemon = CSEM, if you draw it - you get a ban!"
Too much Twitter Kool-Aid??? Wanted to impress his Anti-Cub buddies by being a witch hunter just like them, maybe???
Ohhh, hey! Remember "On Model Sonic is CSEM, so you have to draw him 6ft tall with muscles?"
>>> https://www.imgup.cam/ib/aDNPyykSX9.jpg <<<
Fun Stuff.... the jokes practically write themselves!
.............
"Censorship is a blunt instrument. It's not a scalpel -- it's a club."
"If you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost." ~~Neil Gaiman
It's threads, unless you changed it. So yes, they're replying to Sonious, as he's the first reply on the previous level.
Yeaaaah, I don't get the structure hierarchy at all -- I will go to comment ~under~ someone and then my comment moves somewhere else after it posts, lol. But I guess I'm expecting a structure / stacking more similar to oldschool Livejournal's or also InkBunny's.........
Anyway, you do realize that I have absolutely ~zero~ ill will towards you, right?
It's the other nutty goofballs that think you're the second coming of "Subway Jared" or Ian Watkins from Lost Prophets -- just because you run a website that isn't hyper-restrictive.....
((Also, how come there isn't an option to "Quote User's Text" like there is on IB? That might make it a little easier to decipher who's talking to who -- unless there already ~IS~ a quote feature and I just don't know how to use it yet)).
.............
"Censorship is a blunt instrument. It's not a scalpel -- it's a club."
"If you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost." ~~Neil Gaiman
I agree. I also like the idea of more websites accommodating my
autismperiodic compulsion to categorize things to excess.So what's the better option?
A: Ban a specific type of artwork, or anything that even remotely qualifies (such as Short Pokemon)
B: Add the option to Tag that type of art so people can Blacklist it and leave each other the fug alone?
I think I prefer Option B.
Also, arguing over drawings is dumb. I mean it's 2D art, not a human being.
So what's next after this? Start similar movements to protect discarded Yoshis?
Or start a movement to protect Pokemon from abuse? Oh wait, PETA beat us to it already!
https://games.peta.org/pokemon-black-and-white-parody/
Also... Tanooki????
https://games.peta.org/mario-kills-tanooki/
I mean, yeah. That is a real animal that actually exists and not a Pokemon, but... it's not like Mario just flat out snaps their necks and skins them like in one of those Dorkly Bits skits. It's a magic item in a game, not Buffalo Bill's skin suit from Silence of The Lambs... sheesh.
https://youtu.be/4dat-RxsvC8
Fiction is still Fiction.
Let's avoid treating it like it is more than what it is.
Call me old fashioned, but I just don't think it is fair to make a judgement against someone based on what kind of fiction they like. It's like assuming everyone who ever played Dungeons & Dragons is some kind of deranged Satanist who goes around committing ritual sacrifices.
.............
"Censorship is a blunt instrument. It's not a scalpel -- it's a club."
"If you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost." ~~Neil Gaiman
Uh, sorry, were you talking to me? Because I don't have any idea what you're talking about.
What is the better option:
Tagging & Blacklist.
Or an outright ban of that type of art?
What is better? A miserable heap of tags. But enough cub... have a block! 🚫
People are not going to get your Castlevania reference and will probably think you just seriously blocked Anon44...
If they think that, they probably don't know me very well.
The naivety of this article is the premise that this is an issue of people not being able to block out things they don't like. This is an issue of fascism. And it won't stop until the entire community is undone.
Indeed! We must secure the existence of animal people and a future for our cubs.
Post new comment